From d0bbc56480bd52cc958c83929f1b49a873ee5e36 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ofir-frd Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 13:24:33 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] docs: add Claude Sonnet 4.5 benchmark results to PR benchmark documentation --- docs/docs/pr_benchmark/index.md | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/docs/pr_benchmark/index.md b/docs/docs/pr_benchmark/index.md index 4b420fd4..3e93b548 100644 --- a/docs/docs/pr_benchmark/index.md +++ b/docs/docs/pr_benchmark/index.md @@ -82,6 +82,12 @@ A list of the models used for generating the baseline suggestions, and example r unknown 41.7 + + Claude-sonnet-4-5 + 2025-09-29 + + 40.7 + Claude-4-sonnet 2025-05-14 @@ -182,6 +188,24 @@ weaknesses: - **False positives / speculative fixes:** In several cases it flags non-issues (style, performance, redundant code) or supplies debatable “improvements”, lowering precision and sometimes breaching the “critical bugs only” rule. - **Inconsistent error coverage:** For certain domains (build scripts, schema files, test code) it either returns an empty list when real regressions exist or proposes cosmetic edits, indicating gaps in specialised knowledge. +### Claude-sonnet-4-5 + +Final score: **40.7** + +strengths: + +- **Concise & well-formatted output:** Most replies strictly follow the schema, stay within the 3-suggestion limit, and include clear, copy-paste-ready patches, making them easy to apply. +- **Can spot headline bugs:** When a single, obvious regression is present (e.g. duplicated regex block, missing null-check, wrong macro name) the model often detects it and proposes an accurate, minimal fix. +- **Scope discipline (usually):** It frequently restricts changes to newly-added lines and avoids broad refactors, so many answers comply with the “new code only / critical bugs only” rule. +- **Reasonable explanations:** The accompanying rationales are typically short but precise, helping reviewers understand why the change is needed. + +weaknesses: + +- **Low recall of critical issues:** In a large fraction of examples the model misses the primary bug or flags nothing at all while other reviewers find clear problems. Coverage is therefore unreliable. +- **False or harmful fixes:** A notable number of suggestions mis-diagnose the code, touch unchanged lines, violate task rules, or would break compilation/runtime (wrong paths, bad types, guideline-forbidden advice). +- **Priority mistakes:** The model often downgrades severe defects to “general” or upgrades cosmetic nits to “critical”, showing weak bug-severity judgment. +- **Inconsistent quality:** Performance swings widely between excellent and poor; reviewers cannot predict whether a given answer will be thorough, partial, or incorrect. + ### Claude-4 Sonnet (4096 thinking tokens) Final score: **39.7** @@ -195,9 +219,9 @@ strengths: weaknesses: - **Low coverage / recall:** Regularly surfaces only one minor issue (or none) while missing other, often more severe, problems caught by peer models. -- **High “empty-list” rate:** In many diffs the model returns no suggestions even when clear critical bugs exist, offering zero reviewer value. +- **High "empty-list" rate:** In many diffs the model returns no suggestions even when clear critical bugs exist, offering zero reviewer value. - **Occasional incorrect or harmful fixes:** A non-trivial number of suggestions are speculative, contradict code intent, or would break compilation/runtime; sometimes duplicates or contradicts itself. -- **Inconsistent severity labelling & duplication:** Repeats the same point in multiple slots, marks cosmetic edits as “critical”, or leaves `improved_code` identical to original. +- **Inconsistent severity labelling & duplication:** Repeats the same point in multiple slots, marks cosmetic edits as "critical", or leaves `improved_code` identical to original. ### Claude-4 Sonnet